opentable_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any potential rate limits, external API dependencies, or whether authentication is needed. The bare statement 'Search for restaurants' implies a read action but fails to disclose important behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It packs essential information without any filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema (100% parameter coverage), the description adequately conveys the core functionality. It does not describe the output format or result ordering, but the action 'Search for restaurants' implies returning a list. It also does not explicitly differentiate from availability checking, which might be a minor gap, but overall it is reasonably complete for a search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the parameters in prose (location, cuisine, party size, date, time) but adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. It does not clarify required vs optional fields or provide default values, which the schema already handles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('restaurants on OpenTable'), and lists the specific filter dimensions (location, cuisine, party size, date, time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opentable_check_availability (which likely checks specific restaurant availability) and opentable_get_restaurant (which fetches details).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, such as whether login is required or whether this should precede availability checks. The description only states what it does, leaving the AI to infer usage context from sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.